Pistols at 20 paces.

http://www.secstateproject.org/

Do over? Why not a round of Rock,Paper,Scissors instead?

Franken’s cement head is rock hard and what’s between his legs is made of paper.

Produce a pair of scissors and we’re all set.

There may be no provision under *Minnesota* law for a revote, but the US Senate has forced a re-vote before in a disputed Senate election in New Hampshire in the 70s, IIRC.

From what I’ve read, the U.S. Senate didn’t as much force a revote in New Hampshire as much as go along with holding a special election that both candidates agreed to participate in.

The fact that the Senate didn’t refuse to seat Roland Burris of Illinois would seem to indicate at least some reluctance to refuse a seat to someone, even when there’s more than a little controversy involved!

Funny stuff!

That the left isn’t perfect, I can understand.

Nonsense.

The left is perfectly corrupt, incompetent, irresponsible and unable to govern.

Perfect.

Coleman had five weeks to show evidence of fraud, and he couldn’t do it.

He proved that different standards for counting ballots in different counties, standards that all magically favored the Democrat.

That’s a violation of equal protection. A vote in one county that’s counted as a valid ballot, should be counted as a valid ballot in any other county.

Counties should not be able to toss ballots on a whim, due to whether or not the candidate they prefer is up in the count.

Allowing Franken to steal this election would validate that strategy and any close election in the future will go to the Democrats, as they are the party of corruption and election theft.

But where does it end? While we may win the battle, it sets up a practice that the left will abuse for decades to come. Every time they lose an election? They’ll have a re-vote. …
Vegi on March 3, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Funny you use the left as the excuse for not discouraging this to take place. What, you don’t think the right would do the same? Isn’t it the right doing this right now? Wasn’t Norm the guy saying everything was just peachy the day after the election?

That the left isn’t perfect, I can understand. That only the left isn’t perfect is really laughable.

Sorry Captain Ed, but there is no provision under Minnesota law for a runoff election.

starfleet_dude on March 3, 2009 at 2:46 PM

I believe all states have some provisions for “special elections” I don’t think it would be called a “run-off”

The court could declare the election invalid… but it seems to me that could also trigger what ever procedure Minn has when someone dies in office. Could that be appointment by the governer?

teke184 on March 3, 2009 at 3:20 PM

So why didn’t they just vote for Coleman and keep this fiasco from happening?

I think Coleman will have to eventually throw in the towel. However, Coleman should use the threat of a protracted and ugly legal battle to force the Democrats to enact legislation providing for run-off elections in Minnesota in all future elections. Then, the Minnesota GOP can spend the next five years tarring and feathering Al Franken and the Democrats, and hopefully can make some hay of it in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Outlander on March 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM

I agree. That’s the endgame.

A vote was done on 11/4 (or whenever it was) and reflects the mood of the country on that day, not on 3/3. ***
While Coleman would probably do better this time around; look at the long term implications here of a re-vote. It’s a bad precedent. ***
lorien1973 on March 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM

It’s a tough situation. The best of all worlds is an election system that has a run-off if the margin of victory is below a certain threshold. What we’ve learned is that ANY vote counting system has an inherent margin of error, and once inside that margin, there’s no effective recount system that can give us confidence in the outcome. In those situations, the most democratically legitimate result is a run-off.

But Minnesota law, as I understand it, only provides for a re-vote in extremely limited circumstances. Unless Coleman can make a sure-fire case that this is a case where Minnesota allows a re-vote, I don’t think he can or should push for one. I do not want a judicially-crafted revote as a remedy for a Bush v. Gore violation; for the reasons you suggest, that would be awful precedent that, in my opinion, could cause us significantly more harm than good.

I think Coleman will have to eventually throw in the towel. However, Coleman should use the threat of a protracted and ugly legal battle to force the Democrats to enact legislation providing for run-off elections in Minnesota in all future elections. Then, the Minnesota GOP can spend the next five years tarring and feathering Al Franken and the Democrats, and hopefully can make some hay of it in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Ritchie hopelessly botched the recount electoral theft process

.
There, fixed it.

Coleman had five weeks to show evidence of fraud, and he couldn’t do it. Just some isolated (as opposed to concerted and statewide) examples of inconsistency and incompetence.

Not sure how he wins this.

Granted, Dingy Harry will do anything he can to keep this from going to a revote because he knows that Al Franken’s chances aren’t good if the people get another shot at this.

(A *lot* of people voted for a 3rd party candidate and Obama because they couldn’t stomach electing Franken as their Senator.)

Let’s just trade Franken to some third world country and make him king over there.

JP1986UM on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Hmmm, not a bad idea. How about Detroit, that’s close enough and with their city council having Franken appointed king should be fun….for a little while.

“It sets up a practice that the left will abuse for decades to come. Every time they lose an election? They’ll have a re-vote. They already demand one virtually every time.

You answered your own question.

Democrats steal elections. We know that. Obama-Mugabe is going to send billions to ACORN as part of this idiotic “stimulus” package.

The answer is, we fight them like the enemy they are.

No quarter, no ground to the worthless, corrupt criminal Democrat Party.

The loser winner wants a do-over, because the loser with the aid of a corrupt SoS and SugarDaddy Soros stole the election…what a surprise.

benny shakar on March 3, 2009 at 3:03 PM

FIFY

Nonsense. Who was ahead immediately after the election? Coleman.

And if he’s ahead after a do-over, how would it be stealing it back?

Anything that keeps the startlingly incompetent, piece of absolutely treasonous garbage Al Franken from assuming office is warranted.

Franken will be peddling classified documents the moment he steps into office. He is certifiably insane and should not be seated even if elected.

But where does it end? While we may win the battle, it sets up a practice that the left will abuse for decades to come. Every time they lose an election? They’ll have a re-vote. They already demand one virtually every time. As much of a shit as Franken is, he’ll be gone in 6 years. No way he gets a second term. Even Minnesota isn’t that dumb, and if they were he’d likely win the re-vote anyways. Even then, in the grand scheme of things he’s only one retard senator, and we have plenty of those. We shouldn’t shred the law just for our dislike of one partisan idiot.

The law is the law, and if the law prohibits re-votes we can’t break the law.

At this point, anything done is probably too little too late, but everything should still be contested to see if the fake votes can be thrown out.

And if Franken does end up winning, maybe we can get him on taxes or something. He’s had problems with those in the past hasn’t he?

Could the board declare that it is unable to declare a winner and that the only options are for the legislature to enable a new vote, or for Minnesota to not have one of it’s senator’s for six years.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 3:03 PM

In the age of the filthy liar, anything is possible. Whoever thought that being a tax cheat wasn’t an immediate disqualifier for the Secretary of the Treasury job. Whoever thought a husband whose primary source of income is foreign governments wouldn’t disqualify one from being Secretary of State? The rule of law is no longer anything more but a list of suggestions that can be altered on the whims of the political class.